User talk:Defiant
Archive Start a new discussion Matte painting :Moved to Talk:Matte painting ::Please have a look. ;) Tom 21:28, October 24, 2011 (UTC) Image licenses Please note that images from the Star Trek Magazines should be appropriately licensed. They should use as their license template, with an owner of Titan Magazines. Please also add them to the Category:Memory Alpha images (interior art) category too. This allows us a better idea of how much interior "art" we're using, etc. In fact, any artwork or photograph that comes from a magazine or book should use that particular license and category. Thanks! -- sulfur 14:56, October 13, 2011 (UTC) :I wasn't entirely sure about that; seems like yet more newly introduced templates, but I will try to implement them. Thanks for your info. --Defiant 21:11, October 13, 2011 (UTC) Several topics Dear Defiant, I'm applauding and rooting for your efforts on what you are doing with Matte painting. As somebody who has undertaken similar efforts on comparable issues, I know how much work is involved...That being said, might I ask what you intend with the page; Is it a concept page or is it a list page, or both? If it is the former or the last, might I suggest you beef out in time the practice and techniques of matte painting tailored to Star Trek, as I did with studio model (thank you by the way for the once-over)? Please, do not consider this as negative criticism, but as a heads-up, considering the flak you've received on the Gorkon nomination...While I'm at it, could I invite you to take a look at the CGI-page? I've taken some of your's and Cleanse's advise to heart and adjusted one of the listings as per your suggestions; I was wondering if it met with your approval...Kind regards--Sennim 16:30, November 4, 2011 (UTC) :Thanks for your comments. I'm currently quite busy, but I'll get back to you on those subjects. --Defiant 16:50, November 4, 2011 (UTC) :I'm yet to check out the CGI page (I still will), but I don't really like being considered as sort of the sole authority on the matte painting page. It's a community site, and it's a community page, so do with it as you wish... pretty much. The reason I haven't been focusing on "the practice and techniques of matte painting tailored to Star Trek" is I wouldn't be any good at it; I'd probably cause a whole load of copyright issues, copying too much text verbatim, since I don't really have a clue about that side of it. You're free to concentrate on that yourself, if you wish to. Having said that, just because it's what you decided to focus on in such articles as CGI and studio model doesn't mean that every effects page has to follow that formula. But go ahead with it if you wish. --Defiant 18:54, November 4, 2011 (UTC) Yes, from now on you are.. You'll be considered the foremost expert on matte paintings, purely because you have so much research put into it. Do not be put off by it, it is some sort of a being a "go-to-guy" for these kind of matters....And nmind you, it isn't a bad thing, by now you know more than anybody else--Sennim 19:42, November 4, 2011 (UTC) :Haha! So, apparently hardly anyone knows anything about matte paintings. Really, the only things I know about them are that they're painted, you get two different kinds (the digital, computer-created type and the painted-with-a-paintbrush, traditional type) and they can be combined with live-action and/or miniatures in post-production (thereby varying from backdrops, which are used on the set). That's literally "it"... and that's how long the article would be, if I alone was to write it as a concept page. --Defiant 19:51, November 4, 2011 (UTC) :Your faith in my knowledge of matte paintings is flattering but, I highly suspect, ill-placed. --Defiant 19:56, November 4, 2011 (UTC) No matter, as for now, my friend, as the saying goes, In the Land of the Blind, One-Eye is King, from now one you are the expert...--Sennim 19:59, November 4, 2011 (UTC) :I've now had a chance to have a proper read-through of the CGI article. It's alright, but could be better. The citations still need to be sorted out completely and it looks like the table of images in the first section could do with some additional organization. The page also includes a really long quote from Adam Lebowitz. I think that could be edited down; I don't really see enough reason to go into discussing the CGI for Toy Story and Babylon 5, when (after all) it's a Star Trek wiki. Also, the blurb I read about matte paintings made for some pretty interesting reading, definitely proving that you know more about that technique than this so-called "expert"! ;) --Defiant 22:25, November 4, 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your efforts, as usual extremely appreciated, yet: *"table of images in the first section could do with some additional organization"- please elaborate *"long quote from Adam Lebowitz"- which one? Though if it is he one starting with "When a CGI company...", I,ve this to say; While it is true that he's very elaborate in wordings, he is also the one who actually worked on Star Trek. That cannot be said of either me or you, so as far I'm concerned it stands. Trying to diminish the quotes I've included makes you, well , I'll leave that up to your imagination... *"to go into discussing the CGI for ''Toy Story and Babylon 5'"- huh, where? Where the F...ck did I mention Toy Story ..--regards--Sennim 22:49, November 4, 2011 (UTC) ::In regards to points two and three, I believe Defiant is referring to this section. This quote does indeed refer to both Toy Story and Babylon 5. I agree with Defiant that the quote is a bit long. Perhaps you could summarise Lebowitz's main points in your own words? In doing so, you could ensure the focus is on ''Star Trek, not other franchises.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 23:49, November 4, 2011 (UTC) I know, but this is a opinion of a bonafide staffer making a point, who actually worked on the show whose opinions are not necessarily mine, but supersedes mine or whomever on this site not associated with the franchise nevertheless, Lebowotiz was making a point in his own words, which was not mine to interpret, therefore I've chosen to had it included uncensored, and btw woe unto them who w'll try to deny that. Rephrasing is the start of history falsification and I'll have no part of it....Sennim 00:16, November 5, 2011 (UTC) :What's the point in asking for input, then, if you're just going to argue against it without taking it onboard and start swearing?! Sorry, but I thought you were asking for my genuine opinion! Forget I said anything; the CGI article's absolutely perfect!! --Defiant 01:06, November 5, 2011 (UTC) ::If I may intervene again: ::Defiant - I believe Sennim meant no offence. I think Sennim was just being humorous with the swearing. ::Sennim - this an encyclopedia, not a message board. As an encyclopedia, we report on what others have said. This necessarily involves summarising and synthesising different sources. Otherwise articles would be just huge blocks of text copied from different places. A rule of thumb for quotations is to keep them short and sweet. In this case, a link to Lebowitz's original post will be available if a reader wants to see what he said exactly.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 01:57, November 5, 2011 (UTC) It is clear that I've offended you, for that I sincerely apologize...it has never been directed at you personally, though it might have been interpreted as such. Terms used, utilized in situations, I feel strongly about (to partisan extends), might have been otherwise interpreted, for which I'm deeply sorry. Know that I consider your person to be of the highest quality, regardless what.. @Cleanse, absolutely true, however in this particular case I truly believe he made a valid point, worthy to be read or quoted in its entirety, coming from the horses' mouth so to speak, which is why the quote is so uncommonly long. As a matter of fact, and this I FIRMLY believe in, it is not only what people say in interviews but also how they say it, containing at least some additional information, the last attribute always lost in translation when trying to reword it.--Sennim 02:23, November 5, 2011 (UTC) :Now I'm unsure about whether to take you seriously or not, Sennim. Ultimately, that's immaterial; as Cleanse said, this is not a message board. I've taken the step of editing the info, since this is a community project and the community consensus seems to be to go ahead with the edit (I'll be happy to reconsider that decision if you can prove that the overall consensus, from those who have not expressed their views here, is to keep the info about Toy Story & B5). As for the "more organization" suggestion, the images currently don't seem to be arranged in either chronological or production order; I suggest that this be changed. --Defiant 03:06, November 5, 2011 (UTC) As far as I know the images were arranged in chronological order, but if I'm in error, please go ahead and correct..--Sennim 03:21, November 5, 2011 (UTC) :Actually, I now see they're apparently in production order; my bad! The mix of shots from various series and movies was muddling me up. Another suggestion is to include the productions (the episode and film titles) in brackets. --Defiant 03:32, November 5, 2011 (UTC) Mmmhmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they mentioned (at least on my screen they are)?--Sennim 03:37, November 5, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah, they're there. I'm not suggesting they be added, but that they be enclosed in brackets; these things – "(" and ")". Thus, essentially formatting them, as they'd be in the style we usually use for citations. --Defiant 10:41, November 5, 2011 (UTC) Ah, I misunderstood, done..--Sennim 11:46, November 5, 2011 (UTC) :Cool! I think it looks slightly better, now. :) --Defiant 11:51, November 5, 2011 (UTC) Thanks, by the way how does the the CGI-species list strikes you, I was acting on yours and Cleanse's suggestion made at the time, does it look right to you? On another note, are you going to cover digital matte painting as well in your article, I'm asking because I noticed the Detrian system, which I think is the first or one of the very first digital matte painting in TNG..--Sennim 12:16, November 5, 2011 (UTC) :The CGI species bit looks great to me, and I really like the format. It's just incomplete, but I guess that's apparent. I'm not responsible for adding any of the TNG info to the matte painting page and I won't be adding any such info to it (at least not in the foreseeable future). The article is a free-for-all, though (isn't every article?), so feel free to add the info yourself (or even make a note on the talk page for it to be added later, though inserting the note directly yourself would be preferable). --Defiant 14:50, November 5, 2011 (UTC) Great, I'll take your endorsement as the go-ahead to tackle the other two sections in like-wise manner in due time...I take the matte painting notion under advisement as soon as I can remember where I read about it :)...Thanks for taking out the time to give he article one more once-over.--Sennim 16:03, November 5, 2011 (UTC) :No problem. :) --Defiant 16:49, November 5, 2011 (UTC) Strickler I was wondering if you have any information that might be pertinent here. - 02:27, November 6, 2011 (UTC) :Well, I don't have the script for that installment. Are you sure the name ain't from credits? It says as much here. In about 12 hours, I'll have a search for it in some of the reference works and see what I can find out. --Defiant 02:44, November 6, 2011 (UTC) The only mention of Strickler on the Netflix copy I can find is in the subtitles, which are riddled with errors, and it happens when the person speaking "Is there a problem ensign?" is off screen. To be honest, it doesn't even sound like the same actor, and the admiral is only one of three males in the room. Knowing how these things are shot, it could be anyone. - 03:02, November 6, 2011 (UTC) :I've now checked multiple reference sources, and can't find a use of the name Strickler for this character other than in the Encyclopedia (though I'd be interested to find out if there's info about the character in the text commentary for ). I don't see the point in dismissing info from Michael and Denise Okuda, as they were working on Star Trek: Voyager when was made; they hardly would have just made up a name for the Encyclopedia! --Defiant 17:30, November 6, 2011 (UTC) :I've found some more evidence: the name of Jack Shearer's character in "Non Sequitur" is given as Strickler in both the Star Trek: Voyager Companion (p. 66) as well as in the unofficial reference book Beyond the Final Frontier (p. 284). With now at least two official sources (one of them a production source) citing the name "Strickler", must even more proof be gathered?! --Defiant 18:26, November 6, 2011 (UTC) :More official evidence can be found in the summary of "Non Sequitur", in the fifth issue of The Official Star Trek: Voyager Magazine, which also refers to the admiral as "Strickler". --Defiant 18:43, November 6, 2011 (UTC) :On the other hand, I can't find any references to the character being called Hayes. --Defiant 18:45, November 6, 2011 (UTC) Namimby Hi there Defiant. I was wondering whether you could help us out on Talk:Namimby. We need to check the spelling, and you have access to some sources that might be able to confirm which spelling is correct. Thanks in advance. :-)–Cleanse ( talk | ) 02:52, November 16, 2011 (UTC) :Well, I don't have the script for , so what's one of the next most official sources? I'd say the Star Trek Encyclopedia, which I bet you already have access to yourself, right? I'm not sure what exclusive "sources" you were referring to. --Defiant 07:57, November 16, 2011 (UTC) I was thinking of magazines like Cinefantastique and Star Trek Monthly - it might have come up. Also maybe the Star Trek: Voyager Companion. The Star Trek Encyclopedia doesn't include an entry. If you can't help, no worries.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 08:19, November 16, 2011 (UTC) :I've researched some more into this situation. I haven't been able to find the name referenced in the first 50-or-so issues of Star Trek Magazine (I have both editions of Star Trek Magazine - The Archives), and The Official Star Trek: Voyager Magazine only goes up to the end of the fourth season, whereas Cinefantastique is not officially licensed (but I'll check it later, if no-one else gets to it first). I'd suggest Star Trek: Voyager Companion (a relatively widespread source, I imagine), if not Pathways (as has already been suggested in the discussion). I'll try to contribute more to this discussion, though I'm quite busy at the minute. --Defiant 08:25, November 16, 2011 (UTC) :Issue resolved – Sennim got to the Star Trek: Voyager Companion before I had a chance to. --Defiant 15:54, November 16, 2011 (UTC) Nice Find Good work finding this! Being able to check a few more Voyager and Enterprise scripts is excellent. :-) I only hope one day all the scripts will be readily available in some format.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 04:38, November 24, 2011 (UTC) :Thanks, and no problemo. :) All this year, I've been hoping that at least 1 more script would be added to that assortment, but (apparently) no such luck! Even though several scripts are currently available from there, that doesn't mean they'll be there forever – there was quite a few X-Files scripts on that site, but they've been removed. --Defiant 11:03, November 24, 2011 (UTC) Inquiry Dear Defiant, This is just to satisfy my own curiosity, are you by any chance eloquent in the use of the English language in a professional manner? Your edits in this respect are to be recommended. While I'm honored you that you saw merit in my last suggestion for the Saavik article, your addition of "actually" was a stroke of sheer genius (being a counterpoint to her performance in the exercise), honestly, I'd never thought of that!!! I also would like to thank you for your endorsement as an administrator, but as I've stated, I simply just not feel ready yet for the task...--Sennim 17:35, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :Okay, no probs and thanks for your comments. I have worked as a journalist on a very limited short-term basis (1 edition of a local youth magazine, including my writing, was published). Basically, I've just always been commended for grammar and spelling. I have a "higher" standard-grade qualification in English. Also, my grandmother's a published poet. --Defiant 17:48, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Well, it shows in a very good manner, keep up the good work--Sennim 17:53, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :Thanks. As should you. :) --Defiant 17:55, November 25, 2011 (UTC) That being said an afterthought: "At this early stage in her career, she often quoted Starfleet regulations, and applied them to her Kobayashi Maru scenario-test and was later surprised by the way Kirk occasionally bent those rules."....Like I said an afterthought...--Sennim 18:23, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :Okay, here's the thing – I absolutely have no problems with you making suggestions (or anyone else, for that matter). That's all great, as far as I'm concerned. :) But I don't think, in this case, your phrasing really fits what happens in the film, as Saavik breaks/bends Starfleet regs to venture across the simulated Neutral Zone during the test, even though she does say she's "aware" of the regs. So, maybe something that clarifies that point may be more suitable. --Defiant 18:56, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :Also, if you wish to continue making suggestions that pertain so centrally to the Saavik peer review, might I suggest you use the page for the PR comments to do so? It would seem more appropriate than on this user page. --Defiant 18:58, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Thank you for this clarification. It has now become clear that you are neither susceptible for either praise or commentary, but rather remain in your own universe of truth as you deem fit, as other users of this site have have already attested to (see :Cid's comment:)--Sennim 19:33, November 25, 2011 (UTC) ::I'm just going to step in here before this potentially spirals out of control. Sennim, Defiant's writing style tends to very precise, which at times suggests an aloofness. That's not to say he is though, so please refrain for assuming so and commenting on it in the future. Let's also let sleeping dogs lie, so I suggest you both take a break from working on Saavik to see if these comments read differently under a different light. - 19:53, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Okay, I've cooled off a little, but I urge you, READ WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN IN A MIRROR, and then some, I, for one, know you mean well, but it comes across as being to adversary, maybe it's your style of writing, maybe it's something else, but as of now you're not making friends, and it should not be necessary...Sennim 20:03, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :I meant absolutely no offense, whatsoever. My impression was that we were discussing the article, not anything personal. I'm still absolutely baffled and bewildered how someone could find offense in a comment that says the suggestion-making is "all great" (complete with a smiley face!) --Defiant 20:29, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :If someone could explain to me exactly how that is being offensive, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks for your input on this, Archduk. :) --Defiant 20:48, November 25, 2011 (UTC) You know, what kinda irked me is, that I threw you a bone. I never sought acknowledgment for the quote...I gave it to you, to do whatever you saw fit to do with it...Questioning it like that was rather insulting, so excuse me for looking down upon people thinking like that. I should not have thought you being one of them...Sennim 20:53, November 25, 2011 (UTC) ::The "problem" seems to be that most users tend to use a informal conversational writing style (writing what would be said verbally otherwise) while you tend to use a more formal writing style (writing what would be said how it should be written). This tends to change the "tone" of what was said depending on what style the other person was expecting, hence the issue. Emoticons are suppose to help imply the intent, but they may also be misinterpreted. This is why it's suggested you read whatever you're written before posting it at least once, since if there is another way to "read" what's being "said", you might want to change it. - 21:02, November 25, 2011 (UTC) And that's exactly why, my dear Duke, as you have so correctly surmised in the first draft, that I'm not ready yet for the admin position...I'm still taking things too personally...Sennim 21:15, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :conflict Sennim, I meant no insult to you by questioning, I was just trying to improve the suggested phrasing (and the article in general). Experimentation with phrasing is a ceaseless thing that I personally do (virtually always with my own writing), so it's a completely impersonal thing. I am very grateful for the fantastic suggestions and contributions from other users, which I've tried to express. I'm also unsure about what you mean by seeking acknowledgement, though, as MA's policies and guidelines don't ask for acknowledgement to be given on the actual articles (in common with other wikis). Archduk, I think the problem, as you express it, seems to be people reading too much into what is said. Not being able to sense how what I communicate may be interpreted in alternative ways to what is meant is a part of my condition (it's actually because my "theory of mind" is not as developed as that of a brain). I am therefore unable to change that and remove my difficulty. But I do read (and often double-read) everything I write, as well as most other things too. --Defiant 21:21, November 25, 2011 (UTC) I know, but whatever you use, it´s yours, I´ve nothing to with it--Sennim 21:50, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :Doesn't it technically (copyright-wise at least) belong to the community in general? --Defiant 21:55, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Ah Crap, Believe it or not , the original intent was to express admiration for original contributors, so admitted...(I´ll never make that mistake again) --Sennim 22:02, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Gorkon FA blurb Per the changes to AotW/FA, it might be a good time to write up the FA blurb for Gorkon, or at least start thinking about it. The blurb could be added to the top of the FA nomination section using the current the AotW nomination format (excepting the need for a week number). Changes to the FA nominations page when the AotW nominations are merged into it should make this clearer, but it might be a few hours before I get to that part. - 18:49, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :Sorry, you've kind of "lost" me! I frankly haven't kept up-to-date with the progress of the changing-FAs-and-AotWs thing, as it seemed like a lot was still to be discussed and decided, regarding the various proposals. Could I ask what you mean by "the FA blurb"? If I'm understanding you right, that's consequently a new concept to me. --Defiant 19:03, November 25, 2011 (UTC) ::To be quite honest, I did endorse it as a FA, so what's the problem. I know that nomination changes are in the air, but not for this one, so let's get this one through (it has the nominal amount of votes, for quite some time now). As for the other matters like AotW, that's as the saying goes something completely different--Sennim 19:06, November 25, 2011 (UTC)19:06, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :I'm quite confused, finding it pretty hard (with superfluous "the"s, etc. in your writing) to understand what you mean, Archduk. From what I can see on the pertinent forum page, though, it doesn't seem like your idea of merging the nomination pages for FAs and AotWs has been supported; I, in fact, see no "support" votes for your idea whatsoever. If I'm looking in the wrong place or something, I'll be open to advice about where this has taken place. --Defiant 19:17, November 25, 2011 (UTC) conflict - The "FA blurb" would be what was the AotW blurb displayed on the main page. Since all FAs will now be displayed there, instead of just the 53 we use to have, all FAs will need blurbs. Going forward, part of the FA nomination will be writing that blurb, so they remain a community effort and all, and because one will be needed right away if the nomination gos through. As for support for this, see Cid's suggestion for updating the main page, as well as mine. A week without opposing an idea tends to be enough to make changes. - 19:23, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :And where's that written? All I see is a great deal of "humm"ing and "haw"ing about, "Oh, this might work..." "But this might also work!", etc., etc. --Defiant 19:25, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Merging the two pages makes merging the two processes implicit. That said, you don't have to do this right now, Gorkon will still be a FA at the end of the nomination period, it just won't be displayed on the main page until someone gets around to dealing with the blurb at a later date. I just figured you might want this page displayed, since if you're not doing it now it might be some time before it gets done, considering the backlog of old FA that needs to be gone though. - 19:32, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :You've clearly just ignored my question. If you wish to make this a site-wide change, you should have proof that it's been accepted by the community. I'm still waiting for that evidence.... --Defiant 20:18, November 25, 2011 (UTC) I haven't ignored anything Defiant, you "clearly" don't understand that the policy has already been changed in accordance with the discussion (though Gorkon is still working under the previous policy). I don't have to provide you with anything other than the links I already have, as there is no "burden of proof" involved in being bold after a discussion has die out. Any "burden of proof", as it were, is on you, since you seem to be implying that there was opposition to these changes. - 20:52, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :Once again, a bending of the "assume good faith" guideline and someone else reading something into what I wrote. I don't mean to imply "opposition", as such, just not support either, as I can't find the discussion that provides any basis for the change. As for your pointing out that I didn't understand, thank you; you've now correctly understood what I was meaning when I said I was "quite confused." --Defiant 21:00, November 25, 2011 (UTC) I'm not assume bad faith at all Defiant, it just seemed that you were suggesting there was some opposition, since the standard practice is to assume that suggestions without opposition after a week or inactivity are accepted. I did assume you were aware of the last bit there there though. This is the really the only way to get anything done around here, since waiting for input where none is required, we can't force people to edit here, may take forever. - :What I have been trying to tell you is that I can't find anywhere where this suggestion is even outlined. Please note that there's no links to talk pages anywhere in this thread (apart from, obviously, the user talk pages in the sigs). --Defiant 21:40, November 25, 2011 (UTC) If the question is "where is the suggestion for FA blurbs outlined" the answer would be that it wasn't beyond what the merge makes implicit. The implicit parts are that since all FAs would/should now be "featured" on the main page, as further discussed in the Updating FAs section as well as the main page update suggestions, blurbs would be "required" for new FAs. The old AotW suggestion process, which is what we've been using to create those blurbs, is now merged with the FA nomination, so the blurbs we show have a chance to get community input without there being a gap where a FA can't be "featured". - 22:24, November 25, 2011 (UTC) ::I've counted 5 votes, it PASSED even to MA standards, unless I've missed something, discussion on Gorkon closed.--Sennim 22:36, November 25, 2011 (UTC) The article may have passed, but there is no agreed upon blurb to place on the main page, so it won't be "featured" there, even though it's a "featured" article. The place to agree upon those blurbs is now the nominations page, or the reconfirmation page for old articles without one, but it will take two years for Gorkon to come up at the latter, so a blurb should be added to the former now so we can feature it sometime soon. - 22:46, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :Sennim, I don't take well to you having deleted my last comment from this page (my own talk page), but I'll assume that was an accident, too. Archduk, I wrote this – In an attempt to clarify: I don't see anywhere that any suggestion of merging, re: FAs or AotW, has been suggested. Where does the "merge" idea come from?! --Defiant 22:51, November 25, 2011 (UTC) ::Please elaborate where I've eliminated comments, a these are somethings I'd never do--Sennim 23:21, November 25, 2011 (UTC) The last comment here is me suggesting that the AotW nominations be merged with the FA ones, for the reasons already stated (and as opposed to writing/nominating a blurb after the FA nomination). The suggestion to merge the AotW system proper with FA one is the entire section. - 22:57, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :::To be honest, I was more than a little confused to find all these severe changes to at least two processes, and don't think there has been a wide enough consensus to implement any of them. -- Cid Highwind 23:11, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :Frankly, I agree. Sennim, the deletion occurred here. --Defiant 23:32, November 25, 2011 (UTC) ::With all due respect, my insertion, quoted as is, no deletion whatsoever--Sennim 23:45, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :I'd like for others to comment on this, as I clearly see a deletion in the link I posted and would be interested to determine whether other users can, too (it may be a glitch on my screen, but I doubt it). --Defiant 23:53, November 25, 2011 (UTC) So far there have been at least three edit conflict "deletions" with this page that I know of today, including this one. Sennim/Defiant, have either of you noticed any "hovering" blue pop up boxes above the editing window that disappear, or a very small red circle in the upper right corner next to the "Notifications" link? The only other way to notice a edit conflict with the new skin is to see "The differences" below the editing box, which may not be visible by default on all screens depending on the size. - 23:57, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :No, I haven't noticed either of those two things. Sorry for assuming it was an accidental deletion on your part, Sennim. It's typical of wikia to screw up like this! What I have been noticing, lately, is the bg changing/disappearing to a cartoon-ish gaming one (though that seems to have recently stopped too, thankfully). --Defiant 00:05, November 26, 2011 (UTC) :I have been seeing "the differences", though, as the edit box usually appears twice (the second time with the differences that another user has since made). If the pages are being saved even with a resultant edit conflict deletion, I think wikia should be informed, as that ain't good. --Defiant 00:10, November 26, 2011 (UTC) There are known problems with the background, see the bottom half of James T. Kirk, and it's on the list of "things wikia has broken that I haven't had the time to figure out and fix yet". As far as I know the page isn't saved when you get an edit conflict, but then again categories aren't suppose to be randomly doubling either, so who knows? I'm pretty sure wikia doesn't, but I'll let them know there's another problem they can ignore in favor of changing the layout again... - 00:34, November 26, 2011 (UTC) :Haha! Yeah, numbskulls that they are! --Defiant 01:00, November 26, 2011 (UTC) ::::Wikia is aware of the doubling categories. It's a bug in the RTE that they haven't found yet. -- sulfur 02:11, November 26, 2011 (UTC) :Ok, that's good they're aware of it. Thanks for the info. :) --Defiant 02:23, November 26, 2011 (UTC) Xindi incident Since you've already commented on the reconfirmation, can you take the time to vote on it. At least two more support votes are needed on this one due to its history, though any vote would be welcome. - 19:57, January 13, 2012 (UTC) CBS Please note that "CBS" is a link to a disambiguation page. When referring to the television studio or channel, please use "CBS Television Studios". -- sulfur 14:53, January 28, 2012 (UTC) :In that case, the text should also state CBS Television Studios. --Defiant 15:03, January 28, 2012 (UTC) It depends on context. That one might actually need to be "CBS Studios" to be honest. I'm not entirely certain. Just not that "CBS" isn't a "valid" link. -- sulfur 15:15, January 28, 2012 (UTC) :Alright, cool. Just that I don't see what's wrong with directing the user to a disambig, from where they can decide for themselves where they subsequently want to go. It's a difference of opinion, I guess. --Defiant 15:22, January 28, 2012 (UTC) In wikis, by design, disambiguation pages should not have any incoming links, as you should direct them to the relevant article to begin with. That's why. -- sulfur 15:55, January 28, 2012 (UTC) :According to who and/or where? --Defiant 16:52, January 28, 2012 (UTC) ::Memory Alpha:Disambiguation, but mostly common sense. In a sentence like "The standard definition tape masters that CBS currently has.", the link "CBS" should obviously point to the entity that actually is in possession of those tapes - and not to a list of entities that just happen to share their name with said entity. -- Cid Highwind 17:43, January 28, 2012 (UTC) Also (for example) -- which mirrors the Mediawiki documentation. -- sulfur 17:45, January 28, 2012 (UTC) :Okay. Mostly, fair enough and thanks for those answers. However, the point about it being "common sense" doesn't hold water and doesn't have a leg to stand on, frankly, since no source whatsoever for that contention is cited (with that statement therefore being entirely subjective opinion)! I'd generally say that baseless arguments like that are usually made when the user making such an argument is too personally involved in a debate and it wouldn't surprise me if that were true in this case, though obviously questioning advice from an admin is not necessarily arguing against it. I'm happiest with the Memory Alpha:Disambiguation citation, owing to the repeated mantra of others – that "we are not Wikipedia". And for that reason, I'm happy to comply with this guideline. --Defiant 19:56, January 28, 2012 (UTC) Policies and guidelines Don't make "drastic changes without sufficient approval", especially since those are your words. If you don't want people "following" you around and correcting things, don't do it incorrectly in the first place. You claim you should still be held to a higher standard, yet time and again balk when you are. Why don't you make up your mind on which one should it be, again? - 23:42, June 22, 2012 (UTC) :I'm just taking a leaf out of your book. Also, harassment could very possibly lead to criminal charges in reality. What gives anyone the right to think they can do it online? --Defiant 23:52, June 22, 2012 (UTC) You're right, the next time you call me a name, however indirect, I guess I should just block you. Do try and keep that in mind, since I know instruction slips out of it so easily. You can consider this your only warning about threatening other users as well. - 00:10, June 23, 2012 (UTC)